4.  The applicant was a minority shareholder of YTONG, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.
5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. The transfer contract included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement of minority shareholders with the settlement amounts was to be decided in arbitration.
6.  On 11 July 2003 the court in charge of the commercial register approved the registration of the transfer. No hearing was held before that decision, which was not served on the applicant as he did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. Based on this decision the company YTONG, a.s. was deleted from the commercial register on 1 September 2003.
7.  On 11 December 2003 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, he was not entitled to appeal their outcome.
8.  On 9 November 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal, in which he claimed an impairment of his right to a fair trial and the right to property in the registration proceedings because he had not been allowed to be a party in the proceedings that by Article 220h §§ 3 and 4 of the Commercial Code created an irreversible situation. The Constitutional Court held that the Commercial Code had not impaired his right of access to a court because apart from the registration proceedings there were other proceedings where he could have asserted his rights.
9.  On 2 September 2003 the applicant lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the winding-up resolution set aside and, in eventum, he asserted that the compensation paid for the transfer had not been adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.
10.  On 18 January 2007 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s claim to set aside the resolution referring to Article 220h § 3 of the Commercial Code by which an action to set aside a general meeting resolution on merger could not be lodged if a registration of the merger into the commercial register had been already allowed by a court in charge thereof. The court further terminated the proceedings in respect of the compensation holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because of the arbitration clause in the transfer contract.
11.  On 12 December 2008 the Olomouc High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
12.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is pending.
13.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant lodged with the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Rozhodčí soud při Hospodářské komoře České republiky a Agrární komoře České republiky) an action whereby he asserted that the compensation for the transfer had not been adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.
14.  On 19 September 2006 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings holding that it could not deal with the matter until the above mentioned court proceedings regarding the same issue of compensation would be finished.
15.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a new action with the Arbitration Court. On 17 February 2011 the court discontinued the proceedings. Referring to the judgment of the Court in Suda v. the Czech Republic, no. 1643/06, 28 October 2010, it held that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the claim.